This chapter will enable readers to do the following:
1. Apply a working definitionof homeland security
2. Describe historical perspectives on homelandsecurity in the United States
3. Explain the modern concept of homeland security and its dynamicqualities
4. Analyze policy options andresponse categories for threats to the homeland
Opening Viewpoint: The Concept of Homeland SecurityEvents on the morning of September 11, 2001, profoundly impacted how the people of the United States perceived the quality of violence posed by modern terrorism. The United States had certainly experi-enced domestic terrorism for much of its history but never on the scale of the 9/11 attacks and never with the underlying understanding that Americans themselves were primary targets. In previous generations and recent history, terrorist attacks were primarily the work of domestic extremists, and cross-border violence was perceived as an exception that occurred mostly beyond the borders of the American homeland. For this reason, domestic security initiatives prior to the era of home-land security were conceptually centered on suppressing domestic dis-sidence rather than responding to threats from abroad.
After the September 11 attacks, a profound and fundamental pol-icy shift occurred in the American approach to domestic security. A new concept, homeland security, was adopted to coordinate preparedness and response initiatives at all levels of society. The new homeland security enterprise marshaled the resources of federal, state, local, and private institutions. The intention was to create an ongoing and proactively dynamic nationwide culture of vigilance. This new concept supplanted previously reactive and largely decentralized approaches to extremist violence.
In the current domestic security environment, the new homeland security enterprise is conceptually dynamic in the sense that it evolves and adapts with changing security threats and terrorist environments.
Unlike previous security environments, modern homeland secu-rity policies must necessarily be configured to link domestic policies to emerging international events; this is a dynamic and ongoing poli-cymaking process. Depending on national and political necessities, its purview has also been expanded to include hazards other than extrem-ist violence. At the same time, core initiatives and goals drive homeland
CHAPTer oNe • HISTorY ANd PolICY: deFINING HomelANd SeCUrITY 3
Homeland security is a relatively new concept that, however defined, exists to safeguard the domestic security of the United States and broadly promote the stability of soci-
ety when man-made and natural disasters occur. Although originally configured to describe national responses to domestic terrorist incidents in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, homeland security was conceptually expanded after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to include preparedness and recovery from natural and hazard-related incidents. Nevertheless, it is the domestic security mission of the homeland security enterprise that continues to be its fundamental and underlying tenet in the modern era. An extraordinarily large amount of resources—human and financial—are devoted to strengthening domestic security and coordinating this effort at all levels of government.
In the modern era, the threat of terrorism and other challenges to domestic security have significantly affected the missions of government agencies, nationally and locally. Every level of each domestic security organization, law enforcement agency, and emergency response institution incorporates homeland security contingency planning and training. Homeland security has become endemic to the modern domestic security environment and is arguably the domestic counterpart to international counterterrorist initiatives undertaken by national security and national defense institutions. However, although the concept of homeland secu-rity has created a fresh and pervasive domestic security environment in the modern era, similar security environments have existed periodically in the history of the United States. This historical perspective is often misunderstood and commonly forgotten in the current security environment.
This chapter investigates definitional issues in the study of homeland security. Here you will probe the historical and cultural nuances of these issues and develop a critical under-standing of why defense of the homeland became a central policy initiative in the United States. Historically, perceived threats to domestic security have resulted in the designation of sometimes controversial security environments. For example, periodic anticommunist Red Scares occurred during the twentieth century in which authoritarian procedures were adopted to preempt perceived threats of sedition. (Full consideration of the Red Scares is provided in Chapter 4.) Within this context, it must be remembered that the development of modern homeland security theory evolved within a practical and real-life framework—in other words, a nontheoretical reality in which actual and verifiable threats to domestic secu-rity do exist. Such threats emanate from both foreign and domestic sources. General catego-ries of policy options in response to domestic threats are presented in this chapter to facilitate your understanding of definitional perspectives. These policy options represent examples of the domestic application of homeland security intervention.
The discussion in this chapter will review the following topics:
• The past as prologue: The historical context of homeland security
• Defining an era: What is homeland security?
• Domestic security and threats to the homeland: Policy options
security so that it has become an integral component of security pre-paredness and response efforts at all levels of government and society. Thus, the post–9/11 era has become a period of history wherein the concept of homeland security is common to the domestic security cul-ture of the United States.
THE PAST AS PROLOGUE: THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, the federal government exercised swift leadership in significantly altering the domestic security culture. It did this by aligning national response mechanisms with the newly emergent threat envi-ronment. The post–9/11 threat environment proved to be dynamic in the sense that it posed new challenges for the homeland security enterprise over time—for example, the emergent prominence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), in 2014. For this reason, national response mechanisms were likewise required to be nimble in designing responsive policies.
It is important to understand that this modern alignment was not the first time the United States adapted its domestic security culture to perceived or actual threat environ-ments. There are many historical examples that predate the post–9/11 era, and these examples provide historical context to the study of the modern concept of homeland security. Table 1.1 summarizes several historical homeland security environments.
Table 1.1 The Past as Prologue: The Historical Context of Homeland Security
The modern homeland security environment grew from the need to design a systematic approach toward responding to threats to domestic security. Several historical periods predated the modern environment. The following table summarizes these historical periods, plausible threats, and defining events.
CHAPTer oNe • HISTorY ANd PolICY: deFINING HomelANd SeCUrITY 5
From its inception, the United States responded to foreign and domestic crises and threats during periods when the concept of homeland security did not exist in its modern context. Responses to emergencies and threats differed markedly depending on the security environment characterizing each period. Nevertheless, the perceived threats were deemed, at the time, to be significant enough to warrant intensive policy intervention.
External Threats to the Early Republic
During the colonial and early republic periods, most security threats emanated from fron-tier conflicts between Native Americans and settlers, and the burden of responding to such emergencies initially fell to local and state militias. Border security became paramount in the aftermath of British incursions during the War of 1812, resulting in federal coordination of the construction and garrisoning of forts and coastal defenses. Border defense, frontier expansion, and occasional military campaigns (such as the Mexican Expedition of 1916) were typical security priorities. Nevertheless, until the Second World War, the national budget for centralized security spending in the United States traditionally remained low, except in times of war.
Domestic Threats to the Early Republic
Aside from early post-independence disturbances, such as the anti-tax Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania (1791–1794), security threats originating from domestic disputes were rare and short-lived. The Civil War and postwar Reconstruction in the American South were, of course, exceptions to this pattern. Federal policies during the Civil War and Reconstruction included what would be labeled civil liberties abrogations in the modern era as well as the use of national institutions (such as the army and federal marshals) to maintain order in the occupied South. As we will discuss in Chapter 4, restrictions on liberty have historically been enacted to address what were, at the time, deemed serious threats to the national security of the United States.
It was not until the end of the nineteenth cen-tury that labor-related and ideological discord gar-nered national attention. American workers began to organize labor unions during the Civil War era, and thousands of workers were union members by the 1880s. In May 1886, large demonstrations inspired by a strike against the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company occurred in Chicago. On May 1, 1886, a large May Day parade was held at the McCormick plant, and two days later a worker was killed dur-ing a demonstration at the plant. On May 4, a large rally at Haymarket Square in Chicago precipitated the Haymarket Riot of 1886, when an anarchist threw a dynamite bomb at police offi-cers who were attempting to disperse the crowd. The police then opened fire on protest-ers. Seven police officers and three civilians were killed, and scores were wounded. During the Homestead Steel Strike of 1892 on the Monongahela River near Pittsburgh, a strike by steelworkers resulted in a pitched gun battle between striking workers and hundreds of Pinkerton agents (in which the strikers prevailed). The strike was eventually suppressed
Whiskey Rebellion: One of the early post-independence disturbances was popularly known as the Whiskey Rebellion, an anti-tax uprising in western Pennsylvania (1791–1794).
Haymarket Riot of 1886: During Chicago’s Haymarket Riot of 1886, an anarchist threw a dynamite bomb at police officers, who then opened fire on protesters. Scores of officers and civilians were wounded.
}}}Photo 1.1 The Haymarket bombing and riot on may 4, 1886. Chicago police fired into the crowd after an anarchist threw a dynamite bomb that killed several officers.
following intervention by the Pennsylvania state militia. Both incidents are examples of seri-ous labor-related discontent. In addition, ideological extremists, such as violent anarchists and communists, were responsible for events such as the 1901 assassination of President William McKinley (by an anarchist), the Wall Street bombing of 1920 (which killed and wounded more than 170 people and was never solved), and numerous other bombings and attempted assassinations. Federal soldiers and state militias were deployed on hundreds of occasions during this period. Racial terrorism, often committed by the Ku Klux Klan, also contributed to the perceived need for nationwide responses to extremist violence. In this environment, laws were passed to suppress activism and extremism. These included the Espionage Act of 1917, the Immigration Act of 1918, and the Sedition Act of 1918. During this period, known as the first Red Scare, federal and state government agents were deployed to disrupt perceived subversive groups and detain suspected extremists.
Modern Precursors to Homeland Security
After the Second World War, the international commu-nity entered a prolonged period of competition and conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union and their allies. Known as the Cold War, the period from the late 1940s to the late 1980s was a time of threatened nuclear warfare, actual and extensive warfare in the developing world, and domestic security tension in the United States. The threat of nuclear war spawned an extensive network of civil defense programs in the United States, extending from the national level to the local level. Virtually every community engaged in civil defense drills and contingency planning. Federal civil defense initia-tives were subsumed under and coordinated by a succession of agencies. These included the Civil Defense Administration, the Office of Defense Mobilization, the Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, and the Office of Civil Defense. In 1979, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was established for the overall coordination of disaster relief.
During the Cold War, domestic disturbances in the United States led to the initiation of federal, state, and local efforts to monitor activist activity and quell disorder. These disturbances included civil rights marches in the American
South, urban riots during the 1960s, student activism on college campuses, rioting at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, and terrorist attacks by ideological and national-ist extremists. Disorders gradually receded with the passage of civil rights laws, the end of the Vietnam War, and the end of the Cold War, brought about by the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Following the Cold War, significant new threats to domestic security arose from extrem-ists who had no compunction against launching mass-casualty attacks against civilian “soft targets.” The 1993 World Trade Center and 1995 Oklahoma City bombings were deliberate attempts to maximize civilian casualties and damage to the intended targets. The September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were the final incident prior to the modern era of homeland security.
}}}Photo 1.2 U.S. president William mcKinley is shot on September 6, 1901, by anarchist leon Czolgosz, who hid his gun in a handkerchief and fired as the president approached to shake his hand. mcKinley died eight days later.
deA
/A. d
AG
lI o
rT
I/d
e A
gost
ini/G
etty
Imag
es
Homestead Steel Strike of 1892: During the Homestead Steel Strike of 1892 on the Monongahela River near Pittsburgh, a strike by steelworkers resulted in a pitched gun battle between striking workers and hundreds of Pinkerton agents (in which the strikers prevailed). The strike was eventually suppressed following intervention by the Pennsylvania state militia.
CHAPTer oNe • HISTorY ANd PolICY: deFINING HomelANd SeCUrITY 7
DEFINING AN ERA: WHAT IS HOMELAND SECURITY?
The catastrophic terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, was a defining moment for the United States. With nearly 3,000 fatalities, the nation found itself at war against an enemy who was clearly adept at converting modern technology into weapons of mass destruction. Thus, the dawn of the twenty-first century witnessed the birth of the modern era of home-land security. Pervasive domestic security systems became a new norm for the United States, and internationally, the nation embarked on its longest war. Ironically, the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May 2011 occurred on the eve of the 10th commemoration of the September 11 attack on the U.S. homeland. Significantly, homeland security continued to serve as an essential institution for maintaining vigilance against terrorist threats, as evi-denced by emergency response and domestic security procedures following the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. Chapter Perspective 1.1 discusses the successful hunt for Osama bin Laden and events leading to his death.
CHAPTER PERSPECTIVE 1.1The Death of Osama bin Laden
Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was killed dur-ing a raid by U.S. naval special forces on May 2, 2011, in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The successful attack by a unit popularly known as SEAL Team Six ended an inten-sive manhunt for the most wanted terrorist leader in the world.
The successful hunt for Osama bin Laden origi-nated from fragments of information gleaned during interrogations of prisoners over several years, begin-ning in 2002. Believing that bin Laden retained couriers to communicate with other operatives, interrogators focused their attention on questioning high-value tar-gets about the existence and identities of these couri-ers. This focus was adopted with an assumption that bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders would rarely communicate using cell phone technology as a precau-tion against being intercepted by Western intelligence agencies.
Early interrogations produced reports that a per-sonal courier did indeed exist, a man whose given code name was Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. In about 2007, intel-ligence officers learned al-Kuwaiti’s real name, located
him, and eventually followed him to a recently built compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. U.S. intelligence operatives observed the compound locally from a safe house and concluded that it concealed an important individual. Based on other surveillance and circum-stantial intelligence information, officials surmised that Osama bin Laden resided at the compound with his cou-riers and their families.
Options for assaulting the compound included a surgical strike by special forces, deploying strategic bombers to obliterate the compound, or a joint opera-tion with Pakistani security forces. The latter two options were rejected because of the possibility of kill-ing innocent civilians and distrust of Pakistani security agencies. Approximately two dozen SEAL commandos practiced intensely for the assault and were tempo-rarily detailed to the CIA for the mission. A nighttime helicopter-borne attack was commenced on May 2, 2011. The courier al-Kuwaiti and several others were killed during the assault, and women and children found in the compound were bound and escorted into the open to be found later by Pakistani security forces. Osama bin
The term homeland security was, at first, considered to be a rather vague and imprecise descriptor. It nevertheless became a conceptually integral element in designing policies to protect the United States from violent extremists. This sec-tion will discuss this concept by exploring homeland security within the following contexts:
• The modern era of homeland security
• Conceptual foundation: Central attributes of homeland security
• The homeland security environment: A dynamic construct
• A new focus: The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report
The Modern Era of Homeland Security
The modern era of homeland security began with the rapid implementation of a series of policy initiatives in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. These initiatives heralded the establishment of a new security culture in the United States, one that significantly affected the work of government and the everyday lives of residents. The new homeland security environment unfolded very quickly in the following sequence:
• On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that a new Office of Homeland Security would be created as a unit in the White House.
• On September 24, 2001, President Bush stated that he would propose the passage of new homeland security legislation titled the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act,” popularly known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.
• On October 8, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13228. This executive order was titled “Establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council” and stated that “the functions of the Office [of Homeland Security] shall be to coordinate the executive branch’s efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the
Laden was located on an upper floor of the main build-ing and shot dead by SEALs. Four others were killed in addition to bin Laden, whose body was taken away by the assault team. He was subsequently buried at sea.
Al-Qaeda threatened retribution for the attack and named Ayman al-Zawahiri as bin Laden’s successor in June 2011. Subsequent to bin Laden’s death, al-Qaeda’s leadership brand faced competition from a new Islamist movement calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS).
Discussion Questions
1. What effect did the successful hunt for Osama bin Laden have on domestic homeland security?
2. Which options are most desirable when conducting global manhunts for terrorist suspects?
3. How can homeland security agencies and assets best be coordinated internationally?
(Continued)
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” commonly known as the USA PATRIOT Act, into law. It was an omnibus law whose stated purpose was, in part, to “deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world” by expanding the investigative and surveillance authority of law enforcement agencies.
}}}Photo 1.3 official seal of the U.S. department of Homeland Security.
CHAPTer oNe • HISTorY ANd PolICY: deFINING HomelANd SeCUrITY 9
United States.”1 This statement of purpose by the United States was the first to result from the September 11 crisis and continues to guide the implementation of the concept of homeland security in relation to counterterrorist policies.
• Also on October 8, 2001, Executive Order 13228 established a Homeland Security Council, charging it “to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks.”
• On October 26, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was signed into law. Its stated purpose was, in part, to “deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world” by expanding the investigative and surveillance authority of law enforcement agencies.
• On October 29, 2001, the first Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) was issued by President Bush. Chapter Perspective 1.2 summarizes the first reported compilation of HSPDs as released by the Committee on Homeland Security of the U.S. House of Representatives.
• On November 25, 2002, the cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security was established when President Bush signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 into law.
Executive Order 13228: On October 8, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13228, titled “Establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council.”
Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs): On October 29, 2001, President Bush released the first of many HSPDs, which implement policies and procedures constituting the homeland security enterprise.
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terror-ist attack, President George W. Bush issued a series of Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs). The House of Representatives’ Homeland Security Committee published the first compilation of HSPDs in January 2008.a The following list summarizes the com-mittee’s first compilation. Classified HSPDs are noted as they occurred in the initial compilation, but they have since been declassified.
HSPD-1. Organization and Operation of the Home-land Security Council
HSPD-2. Combating Terrorism Through Immigra-tion Policies
HSPD-3. Homeland Security Advisory System
HSPD-4. National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction
HSPD-5. Management of Domestic Incidents
HSPD-6. Integration and Use of Screening Infor-mation to Protect Against Terrorism
HSPD-7. Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection
HSPD-8. National Preparedness
HSPD-9. Defense of United States Agriculture and Food
An interesting international corollary is that, in the post–9/11 era, homeland security has been adapted conceptually to the unique domestic environments of a number of Western democracies. In the European context, what is now considered homeland security was historically framed under the concept of security and (recently) interoperability among partners in the European Union. This approach reflected Europe’s long experience with combating domestic terror-ism conducted by ideological and nationalist extremists. Regardless of the preferred phraseology among Western nations, the homeland security concept expanded considerably during the post–9/11 era.
Conceptual Foundation: Central Attributes of Homeland Security
Because homeland security is a dynamic and evolving concept, it is instructive to identify its central attributes, that is, key features that influence modern approaches to applying homeland security initia-tives to domestic threats. These central attributes are distinguish-ing features and concepts that define the current homeland security environment, and they include the following:
• The terrorist threat
• The federal bureaucracy
• State and local agencies
• Collaboration on conceptual foundations for comprehensive homeland security
The Terrorist Threat
The modern homeland security environment was created as a direct result of the terror-ist attack on the American homeland on September 11, 2001. Plausible threat scenarios
HSPD-17. (Classified—Not Available)
HSPD-18. Medical Countermeasures Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
HSPD-19. Combating Terrorism Use of Explosives in the United States
HSPD-20. National Continuity Policy
HSPD-21. Public Health and Medical Preparedness
Discussion Questions
1. Are HSPDs a valuable tool in framing homeland security policy?
2. How practical are HSPDs for implementing specific strategies?
3. Are alternative sources of leadership, other than the executive branch, viable centers for framing homeland security policy?
Note
a. Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, Compilation of Homeland Security
Presidential Directives (Updated Through December 31,
2007) (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2008).
(Continued)
}}}Photo 1.4 osama bin laden. Bin laden was killed during a raid by a U.S. naval special forces unit in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on may 2, 2011.
CHAPTer oNe • HISTorY ANd PolICY: deFINING HomelANd SeCUrITY 11
include strikes by international terrorists, such as Islamists influenced by the al-Qaeda net-work. Possible scenarios also include attacks by homegrown ideological extremists as well as domestic sympathizers of religious extremism.
Subsequent attempts by violent extremists to launch domestic strikes have necessitated an unending effort to design and apply innovative domestic security policies and initia-tives. As a result, verified conspiracies from international and domestic extremists have been detected and thwarted by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. A considerable number of domestic terrorist plots have been neutralized, and successful prosecutions of suspects have resulted in guilty verdicts and incarceration of conspirators.
The Federal Bureaucracy
The cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security (DHS) encompasses a large number of formerly independent agencies and casts an exceptionally wide, mission-focused net. Many DHS agencies have significant arrest and investigative authority, thus creating a massive (and potentially intrusive) regulatory bureaucratic enterprise. Other federal agencies not sub-sumed under the DHS are also tasked with engaging in domestic security missions.
Some agency roles overlap and are not clearly defined, but the federal bureaucracy is nevertheless responsible for framing general and specific homeland security policies as well as national responses. In effect, the federal bureaucracy provides overall leadership for the nation’s homeland security enterprise and disburses resources and assistance to guide state and local authorities.
State and Local Agencies
Similar to the federal bureaucracy, states have created homeland security bureaus and agen-cies as a matter of necessity. Many state and local initiatives are undertaken using federal financial resources, which were widely disbursed following the September 11 attack. The result has been the permeation of homeland security offices and initiatives at all levels of government.
Homeland security training is a critical necessity, and a significant number of local law enforcement agencies regularly train personnel on how to respond to domestic security events. Non-law enforcement agencies, such as fire departments and emergency medical response agencies, similarly engage in homeland security training.
Collaboration on Conceptual Foundations for Comprehensive Homeland Security
Although achieving agreement on the conceptual foundations of homeland security appears to be a fruitless endeavor, one conceptualization is embodied in The 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), discussed further in this chapter. The 2014 QHSR identifies “five basic homeland security missions . . . : Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security . . . Secure and Manage Our Borders . . . Enforce and Administer Our Immigration Laws . . . Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace . . . Strengthen National Preparedness and Resilience.”2
These missions are the conceptual foundation for a comprehensive approach to homeland security that includes effective integration of all homeland security operations. Operational integration ideally includes emergency preparedness, managing incident responses, and recovery efforts. However, as a practical matter, it is often difficult to seam-lessly integrate these components. This is because the selection and implementation of pre-ferred homeland security operations is part of an evolving and sometimes vigorous policy debate. Nevertheless, planning and responding agencies generally attempt to collaborate on
designing response options. There is general consensus that several fundamental response components are necessary and that these essential response operations require administrative integration at all levels of government. Thus, collaboration on the comprehensive conceptual framework presented in the QHSR is a desired goal in theory, if not always in fact.
The Homeland Security Environment: A Dynamic Construct
An important step with respect to defining homeland security is the need to develop an understanding of its relevance to the synonymic concept of domestic security. Both embody response options to threat environments existing within the borders of the United States. Within this context, although homeland security can certainly be significantly affected by threats originating from international sources (such as al-Qaeda), the concept of defending the homeland inside its borders is at the heart of homeland security. In comparison, the interna-tional dimension of waging the war on terrorism extends outside the borders of the United States and resides under the authority of diplomatic missions, intelligence agencies, and the defense establishment. Defining homeland security is largely an exercise in addressing the question of how to protect the nation within its borders from threats domestic and foreign.
In the modern era, homeland security is a dynamic concept that constantly evolves with the emergence of new terrorist threats and political considerations. This evolution is neces-sary because domestic counterterrorist policies and priorities must adapt to ever-changing political environments and emergent threat scenarios. Factors that influence the concep-tualization and implementation of homeland security include changes in political leader-ship, demands from the public, and the discovery of serious terrorist plots (both successful and thwarted). Keeping this in mind, the following statement by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security exemplifies the conceptual framework for homeland security in the United States (with emphasis added):
Protecting the American people from terrorist threats is the reason the Department of Homeland Security was created, and remains our highest priority. Our vision is a secure and resilient nation that effectively prevents terrorism in ways that preserve our freedom and prosperity. . . . Terrorist tactics continue to evolve, and we must keep pace. Terrorists seek sophisticated means of attack, including chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive weapons, and cyber attacks. Threats may come from abroad or be homegrown. We must be vigilant against new types of terrorist recruitment as well, by engaging communities at risk [of] being targeted by terrorist recruiters. . . . The Department’s efforts to prevent terrorism are centered on a risk-based, layered approach to security in our passenger and cargo transportation systems and at our borders and ports of entry. It includes new technologies to:
• Detect explosives and other weapons
• Help [protect] critical infrastructure and cyber networks from attack
• Build information-sharing partnerships
We do this work cooperatively with other federal, state, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement as well as international partners.3
Thus, domestic security and protecting the homeland from terrorist threats must be considered core concepts when defining homeland security. These core definitional concepts embody the central mission of the homeland security community at all levels of government.
CHAPTer oNe • HISTorY ANd PolICY: deFINING HomelANd SeCUrITY 13
Although the evolution and expansion of the homeland security umbrella will, from time to time, incorporate additional missions (depending on contemporary political demands), the central focus on protection from violent extremism is an enduring and basic definitional component.
A New Focus: The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report
In February 2010, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security published a document intending to consolidate the definition of homeland security by presenting the concept as encompassing a broader and more comprehensive mission than previously envisioned. The document was titled Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report: A Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland (QHSR), and it was the first of what were projected to be regular quadrennial assessments of homeland security.
The intended purpose of the 2010 QHSR was to “outline the strategic framework to guide the activities of participants in homeland security toward a common end.”4 In this report, Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano explained that the core concept for this strategic framework is a new policy-related comprehensiveness, which she termed the homeland security enterprise. Napolitano stated,
The QHSR identifies the importance of what we refer to as the homeland security enterprise—that is, the Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector entities, as well as individuals, families, and communities who share a common national interest in the safety and security of America and the American population. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is one among many components of this national enterprise. In some areas, like securing our borders or managing our immigration system, the Department possesses unique capabilities and, hence, responsibilities. In other areas, such as critical infrastructure protection or emergency management, the Department’s role is largely one of leadership and stewardship on behalf of those who have the capabilities to get the job done. In still other areas, such as counterterrorism, defense, and diplomacy, other Federal departments and agencies have critical roles and responsibilities, including the Departments of Justice, Defense, and State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Counterterrorism Center. Homeland security will only be optimized when we fully leverage the distributed and decentralized nature of the entire enterprise in the pursuit of our common goals.5
The second QHSR assessment, titled The 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, was published in June 2014. The purpose of the 2014 QHSR was summarized as follows:
More than 12 years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States is poised to begin a new era in homeland security. Long-term changes in the security environment and critical advances in homeland security capabilities require us to rethink the work DHS does with our partners—the work of building a safe, secure, and resilient Nation.6
QHSR assessments are deemed necessary because homeland security is an evolution-ary concept, and documentary reports such as the QHSR acknowledge the critical need to formally review and assess the homeland security mission.
The foregoing approach broadens the definition of homeland security and clearly reflects the dynamic evolution of the concept in the modern era. As noted previously, the
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report: A Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland (QHSR): A document published by the Department of Homeland Security intending to consolidate the definition of homeland security by presenting the concept as encompassing a broader and more comprehensive mission than previously envisioned. The QHSR is a documentary acknowledgment that homeland security is evolving conceptually.
homeland security enterprise: Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano explained that a new comprehensiveness, termed the homeland security enterprise, serves as the core concept for the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report’s strategic framework.
2014 QHSR identifies five homeland security missions, each comprising two or more goals. These missions and goals are summarized as follows:
Mission 1: Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security
• Goal 1.1: Prevent Terrorist Attacks
• Goal 1.2: Prevent and Protect Against the Unauthorized Acquisition or Use of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Materials and Capabilities
• Goal 1.3: Reduce Risk to the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure, Key Leadership, and Events
Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders
• Goal 2.1: Secure U.S. Air, Land, and Sea Borders and Approaches
• Goal 2.2: Safeguard and Expedite Lawful Trade and Travel
• Goal 2.3: Disrupt and Dismantle Transnational Criminal Organizations and Other Illicit Actors
Mission 3: Enforce and Administer Our Immigration Laws
• Goal 3.1: Strengthen and Effectively Administer the Immigration System
• Goal 3.2: Prevent Unlawful Immigration
Mission 4: Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace
• Goal 4.1: Strengthen the Security and Resilience of Critical Infrastructure
• Goal 4.2: Secure the Federal Civilian Government Information Technology Enterprise
• Goal 4.3: Advance Law Enforcement, Incident Response, and Reporting Capabilities
• Goal 4.4: Strengthen the Ecosystem
Mission 5: Strengthen National Preparedness and Resilience
• Goal 5.1: Enhance National Preparedness
• Goal 5.2: Mitigate Hazards and Vulnerabilities
• Goal 5.3: Ensure Effective Emergency Response
• Goal 5.4: Enable Rapid Recovery7
The foregoing missions and goals represent an all-hazards approach to the homeland security enterprise; full discussion of the all-hazards umbrella is provided in Chapter 2. Figure 1.1 summarizes the QHSR’s representation of the homeland security enterprise.
CHAPTer oNe • HISTorY ANd PolICY: deFINING HomelANd SeCUrITY 15
At the same time, the QHSR reiterates the centrality of domestic security and protect-ing the homeland against violent extremists. As explained in the 2014 QHSR, there are six “prevailing challenges that pose the most strategically significant risk” to the security of the United States:8
The threats, hazards, trends, and other dynamics reflected in the drivers of change suggest several prevailing strategic challenges that will drive risk over the next five years:
• The terrorist threat is evolving and, while changing in shape, remains significant as attack planning and operations become more decentralized. The United States and its interests, particularly in the transportation sector, remain persistent targets.
• Growing cyber threats are significantly increasing risk to critical infrastructure and to the greater U.S. economy.
Mission 1:Prevent
Terrorism andEnhanceSecurity
• Goal 1.1: Prevent Terrorist Attacks • Goal 1.2: Prevent and Protect Against the Unauthorized Acquisition or Use of CBRN Materials and Capabilities• Goal 1.3: Reduce Risks to the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure, Key Leadership, and Events
• Goal 2.1: Secure U.S. Air, Land, and Sea Borders and Approaches• Goal 2.2: Safeguard and Expedite Lawful Trade and Travel• Goal 2.3: Disrupt and Dismantle Transnational Criminal Organizations and Other Illicit Actors
• Goal 3.1: Strengthen and Effectively Administer the Immigration System• Goal 3.2: Prevent Unlawful Immigration
• Goal 4.1: Strengthen the Security and Resilience of Critical Infrastructure• Goal 4.2: Secure the Federal Civilian Government Information Technology Enterprise• Goal 4.3: Advance Law Enforcement, Incident Response, and Reporting Capabilities• Goal 4.4: Strengthen the Ecosystem
• Biological concerns as a whole, including bioterrorism, pandemics, foreign animal diseases, and other agricultural concerns, endure as a top homeland security risk because of both potential likelihood and impacts.
• Nuclear terrorism through the introduction and use of an improvised nuclear device, while unlikely, remains an enduring risk because of its potential consequences.
• Transnational criminal organizations are increasing in strength and capability, driving risk in counterfeit goods, human trafficking, illicit drugs, and other illegal flows of people and goods.
• Natural hazards are becoming more costly to address, with increasingly variable consequences due in part to drivers such as climate change and interdependent and aging infrastructure.9
In essence, then, the dynamic nature of homeland security in the post–9/11 era has trended toward comprehensive integration at all levels of government and society in order to strengthen domestic security. The primary focus of modern homeland security originated in response to terrorist threats against the homeland, which continue to provide its central mission, but the newly articulated homeland security enterprise embodies the trend toward encompassing other domestic emergencies. The QHSR represents a systematic review of the homeland security enterprise.
DOMESTIC SECURITY AND THREATS TO THE HOMELAND: POLICY OPTIONS
A necessary element for framing a definition of homeland security is to acquire a general understanding of available policy options that promote domestic security. When challenged by genuine threats of violence from extremists, the United States may select responsive courses of action from a range of policy initiatives. Domestically, constitutional and legal consider-ations constrain homeland security policy options. Internationally, counterterrorist options
permit aggressive and often extreme measures to be employed. Regardless of whether domestic or inter-national considerations predominate in the selection of response options, the underlying consideration is that targets are selected by terrorists because of their meaningful symbolic value. This is factored into the homeland security calculation when alter-native options are selected to protect the homeland. Chapter Perspective 1.3 discusses the symbolism of attacks directed against American interests.
The following discussion outlines available options to counter threats of extremist violence. Detailed discussion of these and other domestic policy options will be presented in later chapters.
Domestic Policy Options
Policy options for domestic security may be classified within several broad categories. These include enhanced intelligence, security, legal options, and conciliatory options.
}}}Photo 1.5 The Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.
CHAPTer oNe • HISTorY ANd PolICY: deFINING HomelANd SeCUrITY 17
CHAPTER PERSPECTIVE 1.3The Symbolism of Targets
Terrorist Attacks Against the United States
Many targets are selected because they symbolize the interests of a perceived enemy. This selection process requires that these interests be redefined by extremists as representations of the forces against whom they are waging war. This redefinition process, if properly com-municated to the terrorists’ target audience and constit-uency, can be used effectively as propaganda on behalf of the cause.
The following attacks were launched against American interests.
Embassies and Diplomatic Missions
• June 1987: A car bombing and mortar attack were launched against the U.S. embassy in Rome, most likely by the Japanese Red Army.
• February 1996: A rocket attack was launched on the American embassy compound in Greece.
• August 1998: The U.S. embassies were bombed in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. More than 200 people were killed.
• September 2012: Islamist insurgents attacked a U.S. diplomatic compound and an annex in Benghazi, Libya. The U.S. ambassador and a foreign service officer were killed at the compound. Two CIA contractors were killed at the annex.
International Symbols
• April 1988: A USO club in Naples, Italy, was bombed, most likely by the Japanese Red Army. Five people were killed.
• November 1995: Seven people were killed when anti-Saudi dissidents bombed an American military training facility in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
• November 2015: Four people, including two American trainers, were shot and killed by a Jordanian police captain at a police training facility near Amman, Jordan.
Symbolic Buildings and Events
• January 1993: Two were killed and three injured when a Pakistani terrorist fired at employees outside the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
• February 1993: The World Trade Center in New York City was bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.
• September 2001: Attacks in the United States against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon killed approximately 3,000 people.
• January 2011: A viable antipersonnel pipe bomb was found in Spokane, Washington, along the planned route of a memorial march commemorating the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Symbolic People
• May 2001: The Filipino Islamic revolutionary movement Abu Sayyaf took three American citizens hostage. One of them was beheaded by members of the group in June 2001.
• January 2002: An American journalist working for the Wall Street Journal was kidnapped in Pakistan by Islamic extremists. His murder was later videotaped by the group.
• August and September 2014: ISIS broadcast the beheadings of two captive American journalists.
Passenger Carrier Attacks
• August 1982: A bomb exploded aboard Pan Am Flight 830 over Hawaii. The Palestinian group 15 May committed the attack. The plane was able to land.
• April 1986: A bomb exploded aboard TWA Flight 840. Four were killed and nine injured, including a
Intelligence refers to the collection of data. Its purpose is to create an informational database about extremist movements and to predict their behavior. As applied to homeland security threats, this process is not unlike that of criminal justice investigators who work to resolve criminal cases. In-depth discussion on the role of intelligence and the configuration of the intelligence community is provided in Chapter 6.
Enhanced Security
Target hardening enhances security for buildings, sensitive installations, transportation nodes, and other infrastructure that are potential targets. The purpose of such enhanced security is to deter or prevent terrorist attacks. Typical enhanced security measures include
mother and her infant daughter, who fell to their deaths when they were sucked out of the plane. Flight 840 landed safely.
• December 2001: An explosive device malfunctioned aboard American Airlines Flight 63 as it flew from Paris to Miami. Plastic explosives had been embedded in the shoe of passenger Richard Reid.
• December 2009: An explosive device malfunctioned aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as it approached Detroit, Michigan. Plastic explosives had been embedded in the underwear of passenger Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
Discussion Questions
1. If you were a strategist for an extremist organization, which symbolic targets would you prioritize?
2. Compare and contrast considerations that would make targets high value versus low value in terms of their symbolism.
3. What kind of target would it be a mistake to attack?
(Continued)
Table 1.2 Domestic Policy Options: Intelligence and Enhanced Security
The following table summarizes basic elements of intelligence and enhanced security as domestic security policy options.
Domestic
Security Option
Activity Profile
Rationale
Practical
Objectives
Typical Resources
Used
Intelligence Prediction Calculating the activity profiles of terrorists
Technology
Covert operatives
Enhanced security Deterrence Hardening of targets Security personnel
CHAPTer oNe • HISTorY ANd PolICY: deFINING HomelANd SeCUrITY 19
observable security barriers and checkpoints as well as discreet surveillance technologies. Target hardening also involves enhanced technological security, such as innovative computer firewalls designed to thwart sophisticated cyberattacks.
Enhanced security measures are critical components of homeland security planning and preparation and can be applied to critical infrastructure, border security, port security, avia-tion security, and information nodes. Further discussion of target hardening is provided in greater detail in Chapter 11.
Table 1.2 summarizes the rationale for, practical objectives of, and typical resources used to implement intelligence and enhanced security policy options.
Legal Options
The United States has developed legal protocols to employ in dealing with terrorism. Some of these protocols were implemented to promote international cooperation, and others were adopted as matters of domestic policy. The overall objective of legal responses is to promote the rule of law and regular legal proceedings. Thus, legal options provide a lawful foundation for the homeland security enterprise. The following are examples of these responses:
• Law enforcement refers to the use of law enforcement agencies and criminal investigative techniques in the prosecution of suspected terrorists. This adds an element of rule of law to counterterrorism and homeland security. Counterterrorist laws attempt to criminalize terrorist behavior. This can be done by, for example, declaring certain behaviors to be criminal terrorism or enhancing current laws, such as those that punish murder.
• International law relies on cooperation among states. Those who are parties to international agreements attempt to combat terrorism by permitting terrorists no refuge or sanctuary for their behavior. For example, extradition treaties permit suspects to be taken into custody and transported to other signatory governments. In some cases, suspects may be brought before international tribunals.
Legal considerations are discussed in greater detail in Chapters 3 and 4, and further discussion of the homeland security role of law enforcement is provided in Chapter 7. The role of intelligence will be evaluated in Chapter 6.
Table 1.3 summarizes the rationale, practical objectives, and typical resources used for implementing legal options.
Conciliatory Options
Conciliation refers to communicating with extremists with the goal of identifying subjects of mutual interest. It is arguably a soft-line approach that allows policymakers to develop a range of options that do not involve confrontation, the use of force, or other suppressive methods. The objectives of conciliation depend on the characteristics of the terrorist threat. In some circumstances, conciliatory options may theoretically reduce or end a terrorist envi-ronment. Examples of these responses include the following:
• Negotiation refers to engaging with terrorists to agree on an acceptable resolution to a conflict. Negotiated solutions can be incident specific, or they can involve sweeping conditions that may completely resolve the conflict.
This chapter presented an introduction to the concept of homeland security and discussed the definitional issues arising from the dynamic nature of homeland security. Several fundamental concepts were identified that con-tinue to influence the ongoing evolution of homeland security in the modern era.
It is important to understand the elements that help define homeland security. Central components frame the definitional discussion. These include the terrorist
threat, the federal bureaucracy, state and local agen-cies, the integration of homeland security interventions, and agreement on conceptual foundations for compre-hensive homeland security. The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review is an essential document for framing a definitional conceptualization of homeland security. A general overview of policy options was presented to provide a perspective for understanding responses to perceived and genuine security threats from violent extremists. Historically, periodic challenges to domestic
• Concessionary options can be generalized concessions, in which broad demands are accommodated, or incident specific, in which immediate demands are met.
• Social reform is an attempt to address the grievances of the terrorists and their championed group. Its purpose is to resolve the underlying problems that caused the terrorist environment to develop.
The purpose of legalistic responses is to provide protection to the general public, protect the interests of the state, and criminalize the behavior of the terrorists. The following table summarizes basic elements of legalistic responses.
Domestic
Security Option
Activity Profile
Rationale
Practical
Objectives
Typical Resources
Used
Law enforcement Enhancement of security apparatus
Demilitarization of counterterrorist campaign
Day-to-day counterterrorist operations
Bringing terrorists into the criminal justice system
Police personnel
Specialized personnel
Domestic laws Criminalization of terrorist behavior
Enhancement of criminal penalties for terrorist behavior
Bringing terrorists into the criminal justice system
Criminal justice system
Legislative involvement
International law International consensus and cooperation
CHAPTer oNe • HISTorY ANd PolICY: deFINING HomelANd SeCUrITY 21
security led to sweeping policy measures, which, at the time, were deemed to be an appropriate means of secur-ing the domestic environment.
In Chapter 2, readers will evaluate the all-hazards umbrella as a conceptual component of the homeland security enterprise.
DISCUSSION BOX
This chapter’s Discussion Box is intended to stimulate critical debate about the aftermath of another catastrophic terrorist attack on the American homeland.
After the Next 9/11
The September 11, 2001, attack on the U.S. homeland pro-duced the most sweeping reorganization of the American domestic security culture in history. The fear that arose fol-lowing the attacks was matched by concerns that the United States was ill prepared to prevent or adequately respond to determined terrorists. The new concept of homeland secu-rity became part of everyday life and culture because of 9/11.
Assuming some degree of terrorist violence is likely to occur domestically, the possibility of another cata-strophic attack leaves open the question of what impact such an event would have on society and the conceptu-alization of homeland security.
Although the likelihood of an incident on the scale of the 9/11 attacks may not be high, it is very plausible that domestic attacks could occur on the scale of the March 2004 Madrid train bombings, the July 2005 London transportation bombings, and the November 2015 Paris ISIS attack.
Discussion Questions
1. How serious is the threat of catastrophic terrorism?
2. Can catastrophic attacks be prevented?
3. How would a catastrophic terrorist attack affect the American homeland security culture?
4. How will society in general be affected by a catastrophic attack?
5. What is the likelihood that homeland security authority will be expanded in the future?
KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS
The following topics were discussed in this chapter and can be found in the glossary.
Executive Order 13228 8Haymarket Riot of 1886 5homeland security enterprise 13Homeland Security Presidential
Directives (HSPDs) 9
Homestead Steel Strike of 1892 5Quadrennial Homeland Security Review
Report: A Strategic Framework for a Secure Homeland (QHSR) 13
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 8Whiskey Rebellion 5
ON YOUR OWN
Get the tools you need to sharpen your study skills. SAGE edge offers a robust online environment featuring an impressive array of free tools and resources.
Access practice quizzes, eFlashcards, video, and multimedia at edge.sagepub.com/martinhs3e
RECOMMENDED WEBSITES
The following websites provide information about defin-ing homeland security and the mission of the modern homeland security enterprise:
Congressional Research Service: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42462.pdf
Using this chapter’s recommended websites, conduct an online investigation of the fundamental characteristics of homeland security.
1. What organizational or procedural commonalities can you find at the federal and state levels?
2. Is there anything that strikes you as being particularly controversial in approaches to securing the homeland?
3. Do you have recommendations on how to proceed with strengthening homeland security in the future?
To conduct an online search on approaches to defining homeland security, activate the search engine on your Web browser and enter the following keywords:
“Definitions of homeland security”
“Domestic security”
RECOMMENDED READINGS
The following publications are good analyses of the con-cept of homeland security and the homeland security bureaucracy:
Aronowitz, Stanley and Heather Gautney, eds. 2003. Implicating Empire: Globalization and Resistance in the 21st Century World Order. New York: Basic Books.
Bergen, Peter I. 2011. A Very Long War: The History of the War on Terror and the Battles With Al Qaeda Since 9/11. New York: Free Press.
Booth, Ken and Tim Dunne, eds. 2002. Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carr, Matthew. 2007. The Infernal Machine: A History of Terrorism. New York: New Press.
Coen, Bob and Eric Nadler. 2009. Dead Silence: Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail. Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint.
Cronin, Isaac, ed. 2002. Confronting Fear: A History of Terrorism. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press.
Gage, Beverly. 2009. The Day Wall Street Exploded: A Story of America in Its First Age of Terror. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kamien, David G. 2006. The McGraw-Hill Homeland Security Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report. New York: Norton.
Purpura, Philip P. 2007. Terrorism and Homeland Security: An Introduction With Applications. New York: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Sage Publications. 2010. Issues and Homeland Security: Selections From CQ Researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sauter, Mark A. and James Jay Carafano. 2005. Homeland Security: A Complete Guide to Understanding, Preventing, and Surviving Terrorism. New York: McGraw-Hill.
